User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive
Overview:
1 - Our writing-process should stick to the KISS-principle.
2 - Alle asks what the relation is between KISS and CollectiveIntelligence.
3 - StarPilot answer is about CollectiveIntelligence and Burocracy.
4 - Alle questions about the KISS-principle
7 - KISS is required so that other persons can understand what is said.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 15:57, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
The other way to organize our discussion has to be a collective way to organize the discussion. You had trouble with my experimental way of organizing this discussion in another way. This other organization does not work for you if you do not grasp the principles of it.
Why do I promote another organization of our discussion? I think that a discussion looses focus if it is not summarized by the participants, if it has no common header. I think the discussion is primary there for the participants of the discussion, interested readers are of second importance.
You headed your contribution with "CollectiveIntelligence is all voices, not one voice". Did I say otherwise? You gave a description how that works on a wiki. It is nearly exactly the way I think it works. I called it the we-voice: everyone who thinks he has a contribution to the we-voice, makes that contribution, as a representative of the we. The next of us replenish the article as the next representative of us. If he is not able to agree completely with the former representative, he describes the differences as that is possible to him. In that way we will have a we-text from the start. I do read that system in your contribution.
There is not one single representative or expert. Everyone is a representative if he thinks it is necessary.
You say that my system or my person has already shut out several exchanges of dialog, spreading intelligence, and deriving further knowledge. Perhaps, that is true from your point of view, because you saw other opportunities for dialog and knowledge, than were realized. But we are actual in dialog now, be it a difficult dialog, grasping for knowledge. You are sure that this is not, and never will be, the kind of dialog and knowledge that is useful for WikiWorld?
KISS if the principle is meant to keep everything simple for everyone, is a bad principle, it is a lazy principle. Insight, knowledge has to be conquered, learning is an effort. If KISS is a reminder that one has to try to make things as easy as possible, than it is a good principle. A complaint that a certain contribution is not KISS means in the first place that the writer is not understood. Two parties can work from there on to a better understanding. The writer by explaining his meaning in a better way. The reader by showing what he does understand.
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
KISS doesn't get in the way. If you don't want to follow the other lines that come up in a discussion, you have that option. But others in the group may choose to do so. You yourself have pursued different lines in the same coversation. Look how many different lines you've broken out in this one discussion. They are on this page, showing you yourself aren't adverse to it, and you don't actually see doing so as "weakening" the primary issue. So, that's a false premise or a failed objective of your system. Which, you will have to judge.
Our wiki KISS format allows all ideas brought up in a discussion to be examined and dialoged further at any time, if anyone has an interest in those. Indeed, you've done it yourself.
In a CollectiveIntelligence, *all* voices are present. There isn't one that is "the expert" nor "the master" nor "speaks for the collective". That's why Collectives often derive multiple, competiting consensual "best answers". If you and I and 3 high school kids get into a debate on how to create a new programming framework, then, presuming I'm the professionally experienced expert on that subject and further presuming that the 4 of you have zero experience in programming, our Collective most likely would arrive at several answers. Mine (the "expert"), and the dominant ego(s) answer. Most likely, it would be two competing answers (presuming that there is someone as dominant, or more dominant, then myself among the 4 non-knowleable). With software, we can test the functionality of the answers and see which actually functions better (as compared to various criteria), and thereby determine the fitness of the final recommendations. But not all matters are so easily measured and metricked.
That's what you seem to be stuck on. A collective doesn't derive a "One and only" answer. It doesn't speak with only one voice. It derives as many answers as there are competing ideas that have defenders in the collective (this means it can come up with more then 1 idea/recommendation per participant). If you cannot communicate to the others in a fashion that makes them understand the superiority of your idea and the reasons they should support it, then your answer won't be the "consensually derived answer". Now, presuming everyone has some domain knowledge, if your answer is the best answer, they may recognize that it has merit, and they may then become its defenders and evangelists in the collective as well. That is how a good answer can jump between advocates and become "the one" answer of the group.
KISS is required so that the other people can understand your ideas, knowledge, and logic easily. You can get into more complicated and more detailed explainations as you explain in further detail the whys and reasons of your idea, but the actual communication formats themselves are still KISS. Very little to no formalization, depending on the particular format the group needs to communicate efficently within itself.
You'll note we are collective. There are 4 people currently active on WikiWorld. Your system is only being used by you, and has already shut out several exchanges of dialog, spreading intelligence, and deriving further knowledge. For our purposes at WikiWorld, it is coming up very short of our requirements. It is, however, giving further evidence that anything other then KISS gets in our way of communicating with each other. Without communicating, there is no community, there is no collective to utilize CollectiveIntelligence. Unfortunately, the next person that comes along and thinks this place is too chaotic and needs formalization will reject all the prior debates, as its not *their* system, and *their* system works. This is a recurring behavior pattern unfortunately. So far, I've never met a personal system that works for the collective, but one day I might be surprised to find one. I'm open to the possibility. The possibility that there is a better way then how things are done now is a core concept of this site, and we recognize that includes communication formats.
Alle van Meeteren 03:30, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Starpilot 15:41, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
StarPilot,
In this part of our discussion, we are searching for the relation between the KISS-principle and the CollectiveIntelligence. You stated my manner of organizing our discussion does not fit with the KISS-principle. I conjecture that the KISS-principle and CollectiveIntelligence conflict with eachother. Keep it stupid simple, sounds like Keep it so simple that everyone in the group understands it. The principle behind CollectiveIntelligence as I understand it is that, the collective knows more than the individual participants. So an individual participant has to stand back for some understanding. The CollectiveIntelligence will always be known by the voice of one particular individual. An individual has to recognize another person as that voice of the collective. But when, and how?
I am able to keep the track of our discussion by relating the several postings. You answered in detail on my last posting. If I react on all this details we will have a discussion about a lot of other things, but we will loose our central focus.
I asked if the KISS-principle can hinder the grow of our understanding. You did not see how this could happen. If the KISS-principle means that every participant of the group has to understand every signal, the KISS-principle stands in the way of experimenting, of trials. One learns by trials. If trials are forbidden we have to stick to the old sayings, the old methods.
I agree with the KISS-principle it it means that it is always an objective to keep it as simple as possible. But that is a struggle in a complex world. You only can ask for more KISS, but never say KISS is lacking, KISS being a target and never a result.
StarPilot 26 july 2006
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
Is it true that the CollectiveIntelligence surpasses the individual intelligence?
When CollectiveIntelligence is allowed to function, it will derive a synthesis of knowledge/answer that surpasses the majority of individuals in the group. It allows the group to put their knowledge together, and arrive at the best answer possible, rather then put their egos together, and arrive at a political ( GroupThink ) answer. It won't necessarily derive an answer that surpasses all the participants, but in a mixed knowledge group, it has the possibility of doing so.
If a person recognize a better intelligence in the CollectiveIntelligence, is it necessary that that intelligence is clear for himself in all his parts? Or is it enough that he recognizes that intelligence as superior to his own understanding of certain subjects?
How can someone realize or recognize that there is a better intelligence if he doesn't understand the parts of the decision? Can you give an example? If a group of 2 people with no or almost no mechanical experience and 3 mechanics, each with professional experience in car auto-mechanics are discussing a problem my car is having, how would the completely ignorant persons with little mechanical experience recognize that the 3 automotive experienced professionals are giving good advice? If we are all communicating via text and know nothing of each other past the text that passes between us, then how would you know their creditials to know they are the "experts"? Would you really believe them when they say something like "check for sawdust in the transmission fluid!". Honestly, does that sound like an authoritive suggestion, or just a wacky thing? If the members in the group cannot recognize the best answer, they will derive several opinions. Presumably, the most knowledgable members will recognize each other's expertise, and they will form a knowledgeable consensus. In the mentioned example, we'd derive a best answer (or potentionally best answer list), and one or two ignorant answers (derided by the majority). It's still better then group would do on its own, and any research into the matter (since it's an objective, measurable subject --- ie, we are able to check the car and its mechanics and determine what answer fits best). However, if the group participates long enough, the two ignorant people may come to recognize that the 3 "experts" do indeed know "stuff" while they themselves don't. If the experts don't agree with their ignorant/untrained suggestions, then presumably they'd stop putting that answer forward, and the group would be left with the better answers. Of course, with 3 experts and a complex problem, they might not be able to synthesize a best answer, and may have equally contested "best possible answers". But you still have better answers then prior to the start of the process.
Of course, I expect Jim will be by to correct my example with better examples from his own in-depth research and experience. ;-)
The problem with group collectives is that it takes some knowledge in a subject for a member to recognize that someone else in the collective has a legitimate and more extensive knowledge in a subject. When involved members know absolutely nothing of the problem domain/subject, the knowledgable answers are easy to overlook for something that more easily fits your expections. Hence, all things Politics and GroupThink.
Is it possible that the KISS-principle hinders the learning capability of the CollectiveIntelligence?
I cannot think of any where this would happen. Can you? If the participants can not make it known that they know more (have better data), their answers will be contested or outright rejected by the group. Full channel (efficent) communication is critical for a CollectiveIntelligence to be able to derive the best answers possible.
While searching for a solution of a problem, the KISS- principle can not be followed, because following the KISS- principle in your interpretation every participant has to have essential insight in the experiments. Nobody has the position of an expert whose special capabilities are used by the collective.
No one has an "expert" position in CollectiveIntelligence. It is purely the knowledge and the logic applied to the reasoning with the knowledge that allows a CollectiveIntelligence to actually work. If you have "experts", you don't need anyone else. If you have a group where everyone has the same level of knowledge on the problem domain, it's the same thing as have a group with no knowledge of the problem domain, in that everyone is exactly equal in knowledge on the problem, and then they will have to discuss and refine that logic. If they agree, they will form a Consensus answer (or a consensus answer-set). If they do not agree, they will form a majority and minority (or minorities) answer/answer-set. If you cannot make it clear in that group to the others what you know and your reasoning (and your replies), you have effectively stopped participating in that group, and your knowledge and answers will effectively be excluded by the majority for further consideration. If you muddle the communications they use, you are effectively preventing the others in the group from reaching the most intelligent consensus they are able to.
Note: Having a group of experts with the same level of knowledge will also get you GroupThink. That's a well studied effect. When everyone knows the same thing (and everyone is functioning at a physically and mentally healthy level), then they will come out with the same answer. In this case, "you are what you know".
KISS is required for people to understand what you say, and what others say. If they cannot understand what it is you said, they will not be able to consider it. They will not be able to add any new data or logic submitted by you to their considerations. If you cannot understand them, its the same for you. KISS is required for all to participate at their maximum efficency in the collective. Without that, the collective cannot derive the best answer possibilities.
Is that KISS-principle not a kind of burocratic rule? You describe the CollectiveIntelligence as the result of the work of a small group of people who can work efficient together, because they share certain knowledge and norms. For them there can be a special KISS-principle, for their own level. But should the KISS-principle be followed to be clear for the whole world? From the beginning?
KISS isn't beaucracy. It's anti-beaucracy. By keeping to KISS, the group can concentrate on things like logic, research, reasoning, and communicating. CollectiveIntelligence would work best when a group has a variety of knowledge and skills, as it allows for the people who don't have the maximum of knowledge and skills to effectively function "above their level". That's how you get better results out of the group--- the best knowledge isn't lost to politics and GroupThink. Formalize the process, and you reduce the free-flow of communication and help GroupThink dominate, because formalization leads to heirachial relationships, and that leads to "group experts", who are only required to understand the formalizations and beaucracy to be an "expert", rather then being someone that actually knows applicable information on the problem domain. Formalization is nothing more then beaucracizing something.
KISS is required for best results. It is also handy for allowing the maximum amount of people to participate. With KISS, this keeps the threshold down for them to participate, if they choose to. By participating, they may add knowledge that was lacking in the previous work. By participating, they may be encouraged to learn new knowledge and techniques, and carry that forward with them in their life (and there's no telling how far that might impact, considering how interdependant and highly connected humanity is--- see SmallWorlds). WikiWorld is open because Jim wants all to participate, to think, to have fun, and to become interested in new thinking. Otherwise, WikiWorld would be a private, invitation only site, where you'd have to have a minimum knowledge of certain subjects to participate. Most of WikiWorld's current and prior participants wouldn't be here, and I suspect Jim would have shut WikiWorld down long ago from lack of interest. =-)
Alle van Meeteren 05:16, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 26 july 2006
StarPilot,
I understand your answer as:
"The KISS-principle is needed in CollectiveIntelligence to make sure every participant of the collective shares in the CollectiveIntelligence."
Is it true that the CollectiveIntelligence surpasses the individual intelligence? If a person recognize a better intelligence in the CollectiveIntelligence, is it necessary that that intelligence is clear for himself in all his parts? Or is it enough that he recognizes that intelligence as superior to his own understanding of certain subjects?
Is it possible that the KISS-principle hinders the learning capability of the CollectiveIntelligence? While searching for a solution of a problem, the KISS-principle can not be followed, because following the KISS-principle in your interpretation every participant has to have essential insight in the experiments. Nobody has the position of an expert whose special capabilities are used by the collective.
Is that KISS-principle not a kind of burocratic rule? You describe the CollectiveIntelligence as the result of the work of a small group of people who can work efficient together, because they share certain knowledge and norms.For them there can be a special KISS-principle, for their own level. But should the KISS-principle be followed to be clear for the whole world? From the beginning?
StarPilot 16:12, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
How are KISS and CollectiveIntelligence related? That is an excellent question!
The main way they are related is that if you do not communicate in a clear fashion that is understood by all participating in the CollectiveIntelligence, you are splitting the group (raising the difficulty for all to understand the ideas being considered). If the full group cannot participate, then you cannot get the full wisdom out of the group. (Link to discussion Splitting the group and KISS related to the text:{{{text}}})
CollectiveIntelligence doesn't need to be formal to get full efficency. CollectiveIntelligence just needs to allow the group to function and communicate at their maximum efficency. JimScarver is the expert here on communicating within a group and maximizing the intelligence out of any collective. So I'd suggest you ask him at the best formats and for what functions. However, from what I recall of various studies on CollectiveIntelligence, formalization destroys the group's communication bandwidth and speed, makes members uncomformatable to speak their mind (they fear disapproval of the percieved hierarchy as well as their peers), and prevents the synthesis of the best knowledge. If you are a worker on the assembly line at a major car manufacturer, you cannot freely communicate with the top level officers in charge of the major decision making at your company. This leads to bad things for the company, as it blocks out the real world knowledge of what is happening with the products from the "big brains" that make the short, medium, and long term planning. But its what happens when things get formalized. Check it out. Even in Japan, where every worker on the line has the email address of his management chain, they cannot actually just communicate with them. The secretaries and the spam filters toss out that as "noise" (spam) unless a major crisis is underwar. The common worker has to use the old and proper way to communicate with their superior, and that's a daring thing, as if they are wrong on the matter or cause embarassment, there are repercussions that all in their unit will suffer (a loss of face or honor for the whole percieved business honor). As a consequence, it takes a long time for feedback from the "base" (line worker) to make it to the "brain" (decision center). It has to go through one or more of the formal processes, and those are the channels that knowledge travels slowly, when it travels at all. (Link to discussion things get formalized related to the text:{{{text}}})
The Internet allows for the maximizing of CollectiveIntelligence by allowing small groups of concerned people to network informally, and talk outside the established norms and formalization of their societies (professional, social, political, religious, etc). That's how just 4 or 5 people, scattered around the world, can so quickly and effectively determine the best course of action in those fields that they have real expert knowledge in. Whether its fighting the spread of an electronic virus (Check out Symantic, Kasperof and McAffee for examples of their business processes in fighting mal-ware in realtime), being able to determine if a WHO health team should be dispacted to see if something is Bird Flu, or whatever.
Formalization has it place. Especially for bureaucracies and processes that need to handle things in an organized matter so that all know "who goes next" (ie, shopping queues, licensing departments, etc) and "what to expect". But it is the anti-thesis of CollectiveIntelligence. That's why large bureaurcracies are CollectiveStupidities, despite having significant portions of the smartest and most knowledgable people in their employ. The processes they use for their communications (both internal and external) are formalized, and that acts as a strong resistor to the synthesis and spread of good knowledge. CollectiveStupidity is the very force we are fighting. It's our arch-enemy.
---StarPilot 16:12, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
Alle van Meeteren 14:37, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 16:12, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
Can you tell me how the KISS-principle is connected with the concept of CollectiveIntelligence?
StarPilot 15:50, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 14:37, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
BTW, we've had other people in the past think that Wiki is just too free-form and that our dialog format was just completely wrong and wasteful. Check out MetaPage.
Wiki is about Keep It Super Simple (KISS). This helps new users to acclimatize to it quickly, and allows experienced users to quickly find what has changed, review the changes, and make changes as appropriate, as well as allowing for quick linking and the power that grants. When a Wiki leaves the KISS behind, it loses the features that make Wikis useful. Something for you to consider.
Destroying the signal
Overview:
1 - StarPilot: signal is destroyed.
2 - StarPilot is good, but severe housekeeper.
3 - Is it true that everyone who acts on an articlepage acts as a representive of us?
4 - What kind of signal is lost?
5 - Alle's system does not meet the needs of this wiki, and it costs too much work.
6 - What signal should be saved? Work shall become easier.
7 - StarPilot: A signal that is lost can be recovered
8 - Alle: So it is a temporary problem. Signal lost is not the same as knowledge lost.
9 - StarPilot: If the page is not maintained knowledge will be lost if the signal is lost.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 16:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
You give two contradicting signals in your contribution. Be conservative in rewriting a page and in this WikiWorld every rewriting is important information, because it there is consent by default. My system is an elaboration of this ConsentByDefault. ConsentByDefault is the rule for the article pages, on the talk-pages everyone speaks for himself. On the article-page one speaks as the representative-for-the-moment of the collective. An I on an article page is not I, personally, but I, the collective starting to express itself with a single voice, the next writer transforms that I in a We if he agrees with the first I. (In certain cases the I is a weak I, used to illustrate things. I think we should avoid that I on the article-pages. It is complicating. It makes a person to a enduring representative of the we.)
I am not surprised if another person changes what I wrote on an article page. I only hope he will do it after a long thought about what I wrote and that he will leave spurs of my contribution on the page, as part of our thinking proces. On a talk page my text should continue to be my text.
StarPilot 16:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 16:49, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
I have no problem with edits and refactoring of pages. However, when one refactors a page, it is world-wide Wiki standards to not destroy the actual information (signals) it contains. You wouldn't last long at the larger wiki communities I've participated in the past, as you are destroying content. You'd be warned, and continuations would get you IP banned, no review needed. WikiWorld is more free-booting in spirit, as it is a place for seeking of new knowledge, as well as a place to discuss and discover new philosphies.
When editing a page, it's always best to be conservative. Check out the other wiki communities, you'll find that holds true. Why? Because not all lost knowledge is *recoverable*. In that sense, all knowledge becomes precious, as we don't know what knowledge is recoverable, and what isn't. Hence, conservative editting and refactoring becomes the writing guideline at all Wikis that are actually concerned with knowledge (rather then with simple activity/participation). Here at WikiWorld, we are concerned with not only finding and the derivation of knowledge, but with philosophy and fun. As such, were aren't going to just IP ban a block because someone completely re-writes a page. We believe that as long as WikiWorld members are around, then ConsensusByDefault is in place, and that someone that re-writes a page completely then completely disagrees with the page or finds it completely unimportant in its prior form. That may lead to a counter re-write, or it may lead to a total page recovery, or some other action, and a dialog may then begin. If a dialog starts, that dialog will continue until some consensus is derived.
Use your system where you want. Just don't be surprised if your changes get reset or editted away. It's not done because we don't like you. It would be done because we simply disagree with your writings.
Truth can never be known. It can only be guessed at. As such, truth is easily lost, and can be unrecoverably lost (at least, to us humans). If you are concerned with the gaining or furthering of truth, you'd know that you cannot lose any knowledge or signal, as that might be needed in the future to get closer to the truth. You haven't seem to be concerned with such matters. So what is it that you want to achieve here? Whatever it is, have fun while you are here at WikiWorld!
Alle van Meeteren 08:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 16:16, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
StarPilot,
There can be a fall back in knowledge. That is a pity, but one cannot prevent it. The knowledge contained in our wiki-pages, is knowledge for so far it is read and understood. One cannot prevent such a loss of knowledge by leaving the pages untouched forever. They will become steadily unreadable, not understood, by the change of the public and our interests.
The outstanding quality of interactive internet, and special a wiki like this is, that every reader can transform himself in a writer. He can show in his product as a writer how far he grasps the knowledge contained in a page. In his writing some signals are lost. If that lost is regretted by other parts of the collective, the conclusion must be that the writer/formerly reader did not understand the importance of that lost signal. That writer creates an opportunity to give the message that is destroyed by his misunderstanding a stronger signal.
But I guess that most of the disappearing signals were just interim vehicles. The way the new writer is acting with that kind of signals is very telling about the quality of the signal in relation to the message it should contain. His rewriting will perhaps strengthen the message, but surely he himself will become part of the WE that is trying to write down the common knowledge.
Is our collective in your eyes a closed company, with an eternal truth. Or is it an open society, for ever searching transient truth? A truth which is dependent on the opinions and knowledge of the participants on any moment? From pages like WE and SocialContract and other pages, I had the impression WikiWorld is an open society. But, if you deplore the lost of truth after someone left us, it looks like you think we form a closed company, where can be truth without anyone knowing that truth.
If a later writer has other ideas, he must be able to ventilate these ideas in discussion with the former writer, even if that former writer left us. It is an indirect discussion by rewriting the former text. You said somewhere that the article-pages of WikiWorld are discussion-pages. I can agree with you for so far the article-pages contain indirect discussions. Not a person in discussion with an other person, but a text as witness of the different opinions. That text is changing continually, while the participants of the discussions try to elaborate there different visions, respecting the other possible visions that are already laid down in the text.
My dictionary does not tell me the meaning of the word 'convos'. I think you are rather impatient by declaring my system failing already. Perhaps it helps if you give a description of my system as you sees it. I do not understand why you compare the wiki with a glacier in connecting with my system.
I definitely think that our discussion organized this way, will make it possible to follow the line of the discussion for a future me and for third parties.
StarPilot 18:19, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 08:55, 26 July 2006 (EDT)
If a signal carries important knowledge, the signal can be destroyed, but not the knowledge it transports. That knowledge will find another way to signal its existence. Signals that carry less important knowledge can be noise in respect to the signal for important knowledge. It is good to suppress those signals of lesser importance.
Knowledge can be lost forever. My previous reply to you presumed that the participants in the exchange are keeping an eye on those subjects/pages/dialogs that interest them. However, as this is a stateless world, but the RL we live in isn't, it is possible for the entire signal and its knowledge to be lost in the edits. All it takes is for that person not to be here any longer, or be away for a significant time and not able to "mind the page". That's the trouble with wikis--- they depend on someone caring enough to participate (ConsensusByDefault). If I was gone for 3 months and someone or a couple of someone's chopped up my favorite topics, would I be able to remember what the knowledge was prior to their changes and restore it? There is no guarantee that the underlying database would still have the copy. The truth is, "stuff" happens. It could be that a major event transpires, the website is lost except for it's "current" state, and so there is no history left to go into and retrieve it from. There is just so many ways that Murphy can cause a total or near total data loss, and for the data minders to not have any real back ups to restore from, it isn't even funny.
For knowledge to be recovered from entropy of excessive changes, it requires one of the participants who learned it and agreed with it to recover it. If they aren't around (ie, all of them got run over by the same bus while attending a convention somewhere), that knowledge could then be lost forever because no one took the time to learn it. It just got tossed away and lost in the heat of the new wiki activity.
In proper refactoring of pages, signals of lesser relevance to the page/dialog under consideration should be spun off to their own pages. However, we don't always do what we should. Of course, if that "lesser" knowledge gains enough attention, it will be spun off (refactored) eventually. ConsensusByDefault assures us if someone is just that interested in it, it will happen. However, many of the more significant dialogs here at WikiWorld started off as lesser signals and grew to a life of their own long after the original participants reached consensus/lost interest. Just life at a Wiki site. ;-)
A change in the routine to signal, can result in the loss of some signals, temporary. But if we are used to the new routine, the signals can be found where they are expected. As you have noticed, my system makes it possible to track a certain posting in his connection to the other postings. I think it is important to link the postings to eachother. By that it is possible to have a thorough discussion, sticking to the subject.
Each signal is important. The loss of any signal is unacceptable, if your goal is to further knowledge. We don't have enough participants to have a signal rich information economy here at this time. In some theoretical future, when WikiWorld has 1 million active participants every day, some lost signal would be acceptable, as presumably similar concepts would be under examination by many groupings, and the eventual synthesis of knowledge would include the lost signal in a recurrent idea from the same participant or from a similar background/knowledge. Right now, "every signal is sacred". ;-)
Also, notice your system fails. You can't back several of your convos right now. In a wiki, each page has to ultimately be able to stand on its own. This is because those other pages may change so much, either through advanced synthesis or other activity, that those other items are lost. WikiWorld is a glacier--- it advances slowly, imperceptably most of the time, but sometimes, it explodes in activity in certain sections. Your linking is effectively pointing to somewhere on the ice sheet of the WikiWorld glacier, but that point may or may not be there for future adventurers exploring our glacier. Or it may not be recognizable at all. What good will your system be then? What good will it be if you lose interest in this site (or stop having the free time) in 3 months and stop participating? Do you think your system would allow your future self, one year from now, to come back and follow the line of conversations you had before?
Alle van Meeteren 05:39, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 18:19, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
If a signal carries important knowledge, the signal can be destroyed, but not the knowledge it transports. That knowledge will find another way to signal its existence. Signals that carry less important knowledge can be noise in respect to the signal for important knowledge. It is good to suppress those signals of lesser importance.
A change in the routine to signal, can result in the loss of some signals, temporary. But if we are used to the new routine, the signals can be found where they are expected. As you have noticed, my system makes it possible to track a certain posting in his connection to the other postings. I think it is important to link the postings to eachother. By that it is possible to have a thorough discussion, sticking to the subject.
On the moment, it absorps much of my time, indeed. But it will become easier, me knowing the necessary routine better. And, perhaps,others, following this routine.
StarPilot 16:42, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 05:39, 25 July 2006 (EDT)
Lost signal is that knowledge that is lost. For example, notice how my reply to Jim's "Power of Truth" comment has been lost, despite it being clearly there in the middle of the page. Jim came looking for it, couldn't find it, and left. That's a lost opportunity for the furthering of a conversation, a lost chance at an exchange of ideas, of refining of understanding. Why was that lost? Your system isn't KISS. It's lost in the clutter somewhere. Jim didn't know where to look, and couldn't find it using the diff tools available because you shifted the page so much. That isn't a dressing down, it's just another example of how things are so easily lost in a long text medium. *we* at WikiWorld have had our own problems in the past losing the signal in pages, by over-complicating our own exchanges. Eventually, you have to go back to a simple serial reply system, despite all the other options available in this wiki medium. Otherwise, people, including your future-self, just won't be able to follow the signal.
Now, that said, what happens to lost signals, intentionally or accidently lost or obscured, and what's that got to do with ConsensusByDefault? That is simple--- if someone thinks it's important, they recover the signal. If it is lost, and no one recovers it, then it wasn't important, or no one realized it was important (same thing as not important, since this is a perception based value). This is true with heavily editted pages or with deep replies. If Jim was *really* interested in a conversation on the "Power of Truth", he'd have started a PowerOfTruthOnTrail page. Or a VirtualClassroomPowerOfTruth page, and posted his original comments *there*, thereby initiating a new conversation with some future contributor. Or if I was really interested in having that conversation with Jim again, I'd go back, grab his comments, insert them on one of those pages, and then put my comments/reply in. And I would then drop a link on Jim's user page (well, his talk page). ;-) ConsensusByDefault, in action.
If you really want to go through and reset WikiWorld, you have that power. But if I think you are destroying a page I think has value that shouldn't be lost, I'll take action and re-edit it. Since it takes you several hours to just cycle a couple of comments in your system, I don't see you making it through the body of WikiWorld doing that. Especially not if a few people reply to something. Again, I don't see how your system is gaining new users, current users (they can't even find items you've moved), or even yourself (you are spending so much time trying to org things, you aren't getting a chance to look through the body of this site and have time to comment on it or laugh at it, as the case may be. =-). However, this is WikiWorld, and we welcome new ideas, and new approaches. Even if I might jump up and down about lost signal, even I realize that sometimes you have to take a step back before you can proceed further. However, I am of the opinion that you will see that our more simple system has greater value, if only in saved effort/time on your part. We will see what the final consensus is. ;-)
Alle van Meeteren 14:09, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 16:42, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
StarPilot,
I do not understand your complain about loss of significant signal. How do WE decide which signal is important? How are you yourselve related to the WE, that is openly central in this wiki? Are you some leader? What means ConsensusByDefault for you? And how lost is a signal, when someone does not see the importance of a certain signal and destroys it unknowingly? You can restore it any moment, is it not? And showing by your restoration what was the importance of the signal that was temporary out of order. In fact, both members of us are learning in this proces, that in fact is an indirect discussion.
I am conscious of the fact that the technic to organize the discussion costs much work on the moment. I am just developing this technic. I am sure when it is grown up, it can be automatized, so that it will be easy to work with.
StarPilot 15:50, 17 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
You have backed out significant changes, JimScarver. When too much signal is lost. That's Wiki vandalism. Whether it's a spam-bot or a user just refactoring all knowledge off the site, the result would be the same. Unacceptable loss of signal. I believe that would cause you to take action, even if the primary actor was legitimately trying to refactor the site in a way that makes sense to him.
Wikis are by nature only as organized as its users *require* to meet their needs. Some are very focused and organized (such as Wikis devoted to a specific game), while others are rambling. The broader a subject the Wiki is dedicated to, the more likely it is rambling in nature, as various norms and fads come to the front of the Wiki community. I am not opposed to change, I am simply opposed to the loss of signal and the unnecessary raising the bar in difficulty and required knowledge for new members to utilize and participate in this wiki.
For a different Wiki, Alle's system may just be the thing to meet its needs. I don't think it meets this particular Wiki's needs. If a page is too long or too rambling in nature, then a refactoring is always in order (if someone wants to take on that challenge). But that refactor shouldn't destroy the signal and knowledge that may have emerged. In addition, there's the minor point about Alle's system requiring so much work and changes that it drowns out all the significant changes to pages on our Wiki making it very tasking to track and validate that those are legitimate changes, and not some wiki-spam bot coming in and resetting all the pages to its pre-programmed marketting text.
Alle van Meeteren 15:07, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
StarPilot,
The definition of ConsensusByDefault is: "What is written is agreed upon until as such point in time you discuss it (which can become a declaration of disagreement), or change it to reflect a new agreement." What is the relation of this ConsensusByDefault to your feeling my rewriting of a discussion is a loss of signal? What signal is destroyed: the signal of our CollectiveIntelligence, or your signal?
I disagree with you about the restriction of the function of the talk-page. Why should it be restricted to only some formal matters? In my opinion the article-pages are more or less objective pages, the WE-voice in our case. They are meant for the general reader, and for that reason they have to be easy readable. They are not easy readable with different voices writing on that page, in the middel of their reflections.
On a talk-page one can expect those different voices, and one can find a way to organize those voices in a readable way. I am searching for the manner to do that. In your eyes I did not found that manner already. I will experiment further, but I will do it only on this personal talk-page, and on the few pages that are my initiative.
Alle van Meeteren 03:07, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
Jim, thanks for your word of welcome. You compares my acting for the moment as that of a bull in a chinashop. That may be true, but the chinashop was moving to another place, and I just tried to help reinstalling.
You are used to discuss on the article-pages themselves. In my opinion it is better to discuss on the talk-pages. We should describe the more or less stable situations on the article pages, under the principle ConsensusByDefault, meaning that everyone of us can act on any time as our representative. This means that the texts on article pages have a more or less objective wording. Underlying differences in opinion are not worded directly, but indirect. Not: I think this, you think that, but some of us are of the opinion that this is the case, other think that that is the case. As a result we start a discussion with a decision of one of our representatives, instead of trying to end a discussion with a decision, with the risk of forgetting the point of the discussion, or a difficult struggle over words and their different interpretations. Our presupposition is of course that everyone of us tries seriously to find our (relative) truth. We are reacting on eachother, not trying to gain the victory over the opinions of the other parts of us.
JimScarver 23:19, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 03:07, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
Welcome Alli!
StarPilot is our resident devils advocate. Don't be too discouraged by his critisism. I think the truth in his comments are worth the pain it sometimes evokes.
I do agree that many pages really do need refactoring. But I also agree that stuff should not generally be edited without discussion except for cosmetics and clearity.
Usually I find the key points missing when someone edits my stuff because I am often expressing unfamiliar ideas that may need clearification and debate to communicate.
The edits have been so extensive and I have had little time to review them. It is hopeless. I am conserned by what may be lost but I applaud your contribution generally and expect the value provided exceeds what may be lost.
We have only backed out vandalism that I remember.
I think we do need to discuss how to improve wikiworld pages and have norms for doing thing. You have been a bull in a china shop to some extent by violating the existing norms. You have an advantage coming in seeing how bad our norms may be. At the same time I suggest you do not assume there is no method behind the maddness. A big part of that wikiworld should be is openmindedness. We only learn and grow by discovering how we are wrong.
I am really thrilled you have joined us and hope you are not feeling too discouraged by StarPilot. Your wisdom and experience is needed and welcomed. I am also happy StarPilot watching the store, tho his tackless and offensive remarks here are rather out of line :-p
I wonder what happend to the discusion of the power of truth. I logged in here tonight to illucidate how truth has power dispite its uselessness to us DumbAnimals.
StarPilot 14:38, 14 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 15:07, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
and also followed by JimScarver 23:19, 14 July 2006 (EDT) -
Alle, you continually destroy the signal. This makes your system suck. In fact, your system sucks harder then a large galaxy massed BlackHole, because you destroy the signal and you distort and change what people actually said (distorting their signals and contribution). ConsensusByDefault is now being fully invoked.
A TALK PAGE (Discussion) is talk related to the article's form. You don't seem to grasp this concept. You seem to think if its talk of any kind, it must belong on the discussion tab. The discussion tab is for talking about changes to a page's structure (its metadata). WikiWorld's purpose is to synthesize knowledge. Look it up, it's right on the front page. That requires discussion and debate. That's why most of the pages at WikiWorld are dialogs or the start of dialogs. If you cannot understand this, I fear you are going to be a very disappointed person here.
You can claim all the experience you want, to imply you are an expert authority. From what you've stated, if true, then I've easily got you beat in those matters. And JimScarver has us both beat, putting our experiences together. JimScarver is an easy going soul, so he'll just chuckle about this whole thing. But if you destroy too much of WikiWorld's signal, he'll restore the entire website to a point prior to that loss, removing your presence entirely. It's happened in the past repeatily.
You should deeply consider that we know what we are doing for this place's purpose. You didn't pass that test with your system. Care to try again? You are welcome to. But stop destroying, weakening, and distorting the signal!
Whatever alternative communication protocal is used, it must meet these criteria to succeed here.
- It must preserve the signal.
- This is of primary importance!
- It must not distort what contributors said.
- We don't need articles devolving into "I said something different from what you put for me!".
- It must not *weaken* the signal.
- Breaking apart dialog posts weakens their signal and leads to a loss of signal through lost context. Either refactor in a way that avoids this, or don't break apart the original. Past successful techniques include, but are not limited to: creating seperate entries for each element you want to respond to.
Enjoy your vacation.
One step at a time
Overview:
1 - One step at a time, structuring after developing of the ideas.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 03:34, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by
Ken,
You agree with me that the way we communicate in this wiki can become better. I am developing a way to improve our communication. At least what is an improvement in my eyes. I choose to undertake a few practical actions, instead of long theorizing about what will be an improvement. I myself becomes desoriented if an article-page contains discussions. I often do not know the status of that discussion, what time it is written, if there shall be a decision, when, by whom and so on. In my opinion the discussions on the talk-pages should become structured around the subject of that discussion. In that way we can try to stick to that subject till we know what our views on that subject are.
StarPilot, Jim Scarver and you do not see in my method an improvement on this moment. I will continue to develop, but only on my personal talk-page and the few pages that will be my initiative, I hope you three will reflect on this experiment. I think the textes of our discussions are better connected to eachother. It costs some work, but when time is ripe, that work can be done by software, after a simple command.
KenSchry 10:41, 15 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 03:34, 24 July 2006 (EDT)
- The previous state of wikiworld communication is something that pretty much embodies the phrase "Barely controlled chaos". I'm the first one to agree with you that we need some stardards for communication, we've tried to propose some before. Those standards seemingly broke down over time and in heated conversations. My suggestion, for right now, is for us to stick with the older format: the logical flow of a conversation. Let's get the ideas out first, and worry about structure later. A great example of this is the page War, take a look at the older page, and compare it with the most recent page. This is a good example of structuring after the fact. I'm not trying to discourage you from coming up with ideas, because I've loved some of your suggestions so far (For example, placing the signature at the top of a comment instead of the bottom). Just take everything one step at a time. I don't think it's realistic to try to change everything at once, and it's certainly not helpful to force changes onto other users. As you said, WikiWorld is an experiment in how we communicate. Let's keep working at it.
Jim Scarver's pet
Overview:
1 - StarPilot asked Alle to be careful with Jim Scarver's stuf, After all, he is paying the bill.
2 - Alle says he is careful. He is acting according the ConsensusByDefault strategy.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 05:05, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Jim Scarver's pet
StarPilot,
Thanks for the warning. There are several reasons why I think I am not messing up this initiative of Jim Scarver.
For a start, in this MediaWiki one can always roll back a page, so if what I suggest is not an improvement, one can roll it back.
And there is the important declaration in ConsensusByDefault. What is written is agreed upon until as such point in time you discuss it (which can become a declaration of disagreement), or change it to reflect a new agreement. That is why I act the way I am acting. This ConsensusByDefault means that the last person who speaks, is the one representing the WE. It is possible that WE can do better than our representative for the moment. But the person that signals the deterioration can improve after his liking. He will be the representative for the next moments. I described the procedure I have in mind on the page Writing on WikiWorld. Have you a comment on that procedure?
I am not removing Jim's work from his WikiWorld. His work does not consist out of the literary texts he wrote, but in the ideas he laid down. I am working with his ideas. I do it my way, but I do it sensible. I do recognize many of his ideas as ideas I had myself. That is why I am so glad that I have found this WikiWorld. This is the place to experiment with technics for communication through internettexts.
StarPilot 18:31, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 05:05, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
You are chopping up JimScarver's comments and contributions. That's very unwise. WikiWorld is his creation, and he's paying the bills for the site, last I heard. He's been busy with RL, but if you start chopping out his primary interest from WikiWorld, he won't have a reason to keep the site.
It would be wise to stop Wikipediating this site, at least until JimScarver can give his blessing to having his years of hard work removed from his site.
WikiWorld is a site dedicated to two primary interest of JimScarver, namely InformationPhysics, and the improving all the lives of sentinent beings on this planet so that everyone can live TheGoodLife. It also serves as a portal for Jim's family to keep in touch with each other.
While I know that JimScarver would love your additions and thoughts added to this small channel of the WE, I don't think he'd be very happy with the removal of his pet interests. I'd rather he didn't return to WikiWorld full time and discover all his hard work is gone or trivialized, and then decide to shut the site down. I rather like the site, even though its interesting concepts have a low traffic other then as seed concepts for others. I like being able to refer people to this site for a good background in certain concepts. If the site is gone, that will remove one repository of seed concepts and narrow the bandwidth of the WE exploring and expressing its own thoughts.
Just my position and concerns, but I felt you should be aware of the major reasons this place has been allowed to have its server and bandwidth and why they keep paying its bills. Refactoring is a good thing, but we are allowed to keep our individual voices in the WE. That's why you can sign in and this isn't just a purely anonymous IP board. Individuality is allowed, and even encouraged, as each of us represents a unique blending of ideas and viewpoints in the WE, and by dialogue between such individuals, does it become clear what the WE's opinion of something is. If this isn't acceptable to individual humans, they may then work to help change the average/mass opinion of the WE. But we individuals won't be able to do that here, if JimScarver decides there isn't any reason to keep this place's bills payed. So careful on the Whitescarver material, please. Refute and refactor as you please, but don't delete it or make it difficult to find.
Welcome
Welcome to WikiWorld, Alle! You've found us at a very transitional point (We are going from PhpWiki2MediaWiki), I hope you are not put off by any formatting issues that show up around the site, we are working to resolve them. I think (and hope) that you will find a lively discussion on this wiki. Feel free to start or restart a topic with your own opinion. --KenSchry 08:24, 7 July 2006 (EDT)
This discussion is related to
| [[WE#{{{header}}}]] | See Also SocialContract |
Objective criteria
Overview:
A reason to ban the SocialContract link from the WE page should be that the SocialContract needs objective criteria.
Alle does not understand why that gives a reason to have no link from WE to SocialContract.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
====Alle van Meeteren 10:01, 7 July 2006 (EDT)====:
- An wiki-community is very thin. The borders are very dynamic. On the moment this community is also very small. Perhaps it shows that objective, and outspoken, criteria are necessary to resolve conflicts, but I advise to postpone developing this criteria, till a conflict rises, if any. Perhaps, a criterium will be that no-one invests his own ego in the community, but only a helping hand.
User unknown
Should we include a link in the See Also section to SocialContract? What is the reasoning for this inclusion? It seems unrelated to how a small WE can have global effects, for instance:
- see discussion Violating the SocialContract
- the SocialContract provides an objective bases for collaboration. Without objective criteria, groups are generally unsucessfull at resolving conflict. Research suggests you cannot have any successful collaboration without them, nevermind a CollectiveIntelligence.
Time to refactor
Overview:
2 - Alle explained why this talk-page is organized the way it is organized.
4 - StarPilot disagrees. Violating the SocialContract does not have any consequences.
5 - Alle pointed out that the behaviour following the SocialContract also has rewards.
7 - StarPilot asks why he should find a new contribution in the middle of a page.
8 - Alle claims there is a system in his ordering of the dialog.
9 - StarPilot: If you make it difficult to find a response you are not interested in dialog.
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
Alle van Meeteren 05:43, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
newest contribution
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Time to refactor
StarPilot, I am very interested in dialog. That is the reason why I am trying to organize it better. A dialog should have a focus. That is often missing. Because we are talking with texts, there are opportunities, that we do not have IRL. Just putting them in time-order is not the best way to organize the dialog.
You do not have to use the history, of course. But you have to know where you must look for a new contribution. That is behind the overview. That overview will help you reminding the discussion. I fixed some tools to connect the contributions to each other. Perhaps, that will help you to find your way.
StarPilot 16:21, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 05:43, 13 July 2006 (EDT)
If people have to use a history diff to find what you changed, in a dialog page, then you aren't interested in dialog.
It's one thing to update something like 4chan, where there are many entries. But it is a recording of events and ideas. The events are ordered by chronology, and the ideas are ordered by alphabetical order. To find the changes on it, a diff is good.
Now, on this page, why should I have to look somewhere in the middle of the page to find your reply? This is a sequential event. You say something, I say something, etc. It's a direct chain. Yet, you are not stacking it in a straight stack. You are ordering it in a fashion that makes it difficult for people to figure out what is where. If it isn't obvious to most, it's a failed interface. If it isn't consistent, it's a failed interface.
Alle van Meeteren 14:43, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 16:21, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
StarPilot, I am not just putting contributions on arbitrary places, there is a system in it. On the moment you do not see the system, used as you are to the ordinary system. The system is a fight against entropy, but for you it looks like entropy on the moment.
I did understand your remark about not reacting on me. I used it as an exemple of social punishment if one does not act according the SocialContract, that was all.
If you want to see the change between a former page, you can use the history-tab above and look at the differences.
StarPilot 12:55, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 14:43, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
Alle_van_Meeteren, if someone, such as myself, can't find all your different entries on a page, it means I don't see the change, and you are "punished" by inaction (i.e., I can't reply to it because I don't find it) through your own direct action. Of course, it's not a punishment, it's just the dropping of a thought-chain in the WE. To put it in another way, your thought/reply cannot connect with me, and that ends the refinement of that thought of the WE. It is lost to entropy. Now, someone that comes along later may see it, and pick up on it, but since this is currently a low traffic site, the odds aren't very good on that.
I don't believe in punishing people here unless their actions make it impossible for people to participate, or threatens this site's existance by doing things that could bring about its loss. This is a forum for personal thought, dialog, and learning. So long as we are learning or conversing, WikiWorld is moving forward in its goals.
Alle van Meeteren 06:35, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by StarPilot 12:55, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
StarPilot,
WE form a community because we want to participate. You pointed to the fact that there is not a direct punishment for breaking the rules that organize are common work. There are indirect punishments. You give as an exemple, that you do not react on my remarks. If you do you give me a social punishment, and it will be an effective one.. But, we form a community for the rewards of it. If you violate the SocialContract you will lessen the rewards of our common work, don't you think so?
StarPilot 12:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 06:35, 12 July 2006 (EDT)
JimScarver, I'll reiterate: the SocialContract is that which you must do to remain a member of that community. To be a member of WikiWorld requires what, exactly? That we take the trouble to participate. That's it. Activity. Is there anything that I could do that would get me permanently banished from this community? Those boundaries define what our actual SocialContract is. I know this: murder of my fellow sentiences does not bar participation here. We don't know anything about each other. There is no way to validate that I'm not a Death Row Inmate who went on a homicidal spree and killed 123 humans in a most slow, grotesque, and torturous way. We also have proven that rudeness is well within acceptable boundaries. I can go through and refute all the points posted by Alle van Meeteren, and show that currently, our SocialContract only require that we *participate*. Nothing more, nothing less. By participating, one is part of the WikiWorld community, and the only crime is to not be a member. ;-)
Alle van Meeteren 08:13, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Time to refactor
Jim's remark is a refutation of Star's saying that the SocialContract is not the WE. I agree with Jim. A kind of SocialContract is essential for every community. Most of the times the community does not write it out.
The regulations I like most of our SocialContract in relation to WikiWorld itself are:
- We have a responsibility all our collaborative activities to minimally restrict the activity or mandate actions by our individuals.
- Flexibility and diversity in our endeavors is required to make them resilient to change.
- We must be conservative in application of objective truth in collective solutions since there is no absolute truth, truth is relative to some logical context.
By scrutinizing the SocialContract for these appointments, I noticed that the SocialContract has a bigger pretention. That declares the reading of StarPilot of this contract. From the point of view of WikiWorld certain rules in the contract are superfluous
- As HumanBeings Live and let live requires that we collectively protect the lives of our individuals against war, murder, and enslavement and theft of property.
- because: With our writing on WorldWiki we cannot protect the lifes of our indidivuals.
- Executive action by initiatives of our duly elected and appointed representatives.
- because: On WikiWorld there is ConsensusByDefault. So every act of an individual, part of WE, is an act of the WE. There are no elected representatives, else then sheer technical.
- Common belief as evidenced by the majority
- because every writer is a representative of the WE there will be only deliberation. In that deliberation we will find out what is best for our collective, for the time being. We will never know what a majority of us thinks, we do not count the voices.
- Court system validation of collective action
- because our texts are in flux. We do not bring them to court.
JimScarver 07:12, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 08:13, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
and also followed by StarPilot 12:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT) -
WE may have a bone of contention here (StarPilot 17:58, 10 July 2006 (EDT)). WE is different from the Tyranny of the Majority only due to the social contract. If there is inteligence collectively, it is not mob rule, not Facism, and not Communism. It is enablement and facilitation of individuals. The only means I see to uphold this collective and susstain our individual notion of TheGoodLife is to obey our SocialContract.
Alle van Meeteren 05:25, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Time to refactor
Star,
It is a pity you feel yourself completely lost. I hope you will know the way again when things are settled. If you thinks it is necessary to refactor this page, go ahead. But do realize it is a talk-page, not an article. On pages like this we are finding our way together. I am sure we will find a new equilibrium. I think one of our principles has to be that we do not discuss on article pages, as we used to do. Talk-pages are there for discussion. I found the text above on a article-page and moved it to a talk-page, I thought was relevant. But we also have to keep the discussion readable. I think it is a good strategy to maintain a summary. So a third party can scan a discussion quickly, after that he can decide to read it. The participant of the discussion learns much from the way another participant summerizes his contribution. It is his reading of that contribution. It will be the start of his reaction. It will a reaction on which is reflected, because one has first to summarize the contribution one is reacting on.
It is best to place that reaction immediately after the summary. As a consequence, you should read the contributions upside-down. The newest is above. As a participant of a discussion I like that. I have read the earlier contributions, I am not specially interested in them anymore. Only for a reminder perhaps of earlier sayings. Someone who does not follow the discussions, has the summary for a start. Is he interested and he will follow it from the start, the only think he has to do is to read it bottom-up.
StarPilot 17:58, 10 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
reaction on/
followed by Alle van Meeteren 05:25, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
and also followed by JimScarver 07:12, 11 July 2006 (EDT) -
Ok, that's it. I'm completely lost now. Someone, refactor this into a real article. No more of this trash, please, or I'll kill the whole bugger and put it back where it belongs--- as part of the original article and its discussion. This originally was part of the gesalt of the definitions of SocialContract, part of the defining dialog, that made it clear that the SocialContract has multiple definitions, that which is, and the ideal for which people in a particular community are supposed to aim for.
The WE is merely the entire human collective. Period. Full stop. GO NO FURTHER!
Understand the difference? The SocialContract is not the WE. I argued that there is an actual SocialContract that is part of the relationship of any community that has to be met to stay a member of that community, whatever its size (and tried to imply this was different from the stated SocialContract of that community). JimScarver was more interested that WikiWorld should define a SocialContract that would enable every living human to live TheGoodLife. That is, JimScarver wanted to define WikiWorld's ideal SocialContract.
I like new blood on this Wiki, but when I can't make heads or tails out of an article, one of the guiding principles of this Wiki says its time to refactor it into something that makes sense. ConsensusByDefault and all that.
So, our new blood can take another stab at this, or I'll put things into what I think makes sense, and let the wiki dialog process commence until we establish a new equilibrium on the matter. That is the process of Wikis.
Butterfly
Overview:
User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive#JimScarver 09:16, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
Last revised by: Alle van Meeteren
StarPilot 11:09, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
[[User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive#{{{former}}}|reaction on]]/
followed by Butterfly
JimScarver, I love you. But Truth has no real power when humans are involved. Humans are primarily emotive beings, and only secondarily are they logical. Humans feel their way through decisions, then use logic to rationalize a justification for their decisions. Other humans either accept or reject that reasoning, based on how they themselves feel. This is why politics centers around *feelgood* issues, rather then actual facts and logic--- feelings always trump truth, when humans are doing the appraisal. Science itself has done studies which show that the human brain literally rejects truths and conclusions if they directly conflict with what it prefers (what it *knows*). It's nothing more then noise to the system, and filtered out accordingly. Isn't sentience grand?
I suppose that paragraph should go into the LackOfPowerOfTruth article. Feel free to refactor it. That's a good feature of Wiki. ;-) I might do it one day, once I've caught up on other matters, if no one else beats me to it.
JimScarver 09:16, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
survey/
[[User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive#{{{former}}}|reaction on]]/
followed by StarPilot 11:09, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
WE believe in the PowerOfTruth because it is eternal. Truth is not a democracy. WE inevidably shall be ruled by Truth, should we be intelligent, or WE shall be dead.
By the butterfly effect, WE lack no power here. -- see NetworkTheory
WikiWorld's SocialContract = Participate!
BTW, you guys are about to lose me permantently. Three different discussions got broken apart and moved around, making them near impossible to follow. If this becomes norm for this new WikiWorld, it won't be worth my time to come here, and then I'll stop participating. And I know I won't be able to turn on other people to it, as it's too far from communication norms to be followed by the majority of humanity. (Link to discussion [[communication norms#{{{header}}}|{{{header}}}]] related to the text:{{{text}}})
JimScarver, I'll reiterate: the SocialContract is that which you must do to remain a member of that community. To be a member of WikiWorld requires what, exactly? That we take the trouble to participate. That's it. Activity. Is there anything that I could do that would get me permanently banished from this community? Those boundaries define what our actual SocialContract is. I know this: murder of my fellow sentiences does not bar participation here. We don't know anything about each other. There is no way to validate that I'm not a Death Row Inmate who went on a homicidal spree and killed 123 humans in a most slow, grotesque, and torturous way. We also have proven that rudeness is well within acceptable boundaries. I can go through and refute all the points posted by Alle van Meeteren, and show that currently, our SocialContract only require that we *participate*. Nothing more, nothing less. By participating, one is part of the WikiWorld community, and the only crime is to not be a member. ;-)
Now, as I've said, WikiWorld is searching for what the *ideal* SocialContract is that will bring about TheGoodLife. However, this is not a simple thing in reality, although it would seem to be a simple thing in theory. The reason is that most humans don't know how to enjoy TheGoodLife. It is simple enought to do, but humans have to learn how to be, and most people that are lucky enough currently to be able to devote much time to personal considerations and introspections do not understand the questions they should be asking themselves which will lead them into being able to live TheGoodLife. So I think the only thing we can do is provide a framework for them not to interfere with others unduly, and to put down guidelines for how to respect each other. The problem is that if people don't agree in their feelings that others have the same right to TheGoodLife as they, they won't respect others. If they don't respect others, they won't see others or treat them as fellow living, feeling, reasoning beings. This is a primary actor for how things fail between humans. If you aren't a real person to me, then you are an object to be used like any other. This creates a violation of TheGoodLife, but it as this is something that happens internally, there is no way to really enforce the behavior we need. (See: SkinnersLaw for discussions on enforcing behavior).
It's a difficult matter--- how do you teach people to be mature, and to have real respect for others that's seated in their brain, rather then just a bit of "manners" when in polite company?
---StarPilot 12:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
What is WikiWorld?
Alle van Meeteren, WikiWorld is not an objective site. It's a learning and philosophy site. (Link to discussion [[learning site#{{{header}}}|{{{header}}}]] related to the text:{{{text}}})Both require dialog if people are to actually learn them. Somewhere between 75% to 90% of WikiWorld is nothing more then individual people having a dialog. That's the entire article. This is important, as most users are not going to link to the discussion on, say, SocialContract, by using SocialContract. Indeed, I think the main meat of this article is the discussions itself.
On the logic and anal-retentative scales for humans, I'm fairly up there. I have a fairly good understanding of when a "typical" human just won't care if things are made neater--- they only care how easily they can use something, how easy it is to find what they want, and that what they want to learn isn't too difficult to do so. WikiWorld is currently leaving that world very far behind. I see this as counter to the purposes of WikiWorld. As KenSchry has said to me repeatily, this isn't Wikipedia.
I hope this series of postings will communicate to you the information you seek from me. But if there is anything I forgot about because I lost track of the matter with the refactoring you do, please feel free to call it to my attention. New viewpoints only enrich WikiWorld.
---StarPilot 12:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
What is WE?
WE is not the TyrannyOfTheMajority, as the WE is the sum total collective of all humans that communicate. In other worlds, the WE comprises both the Majority and all the Minorities. Every single human that in any way, communicates with other humans, is part of the WE. You, me, the teens from 4chan, the talking heads on tv, the screeching voices on the radio, the nomadic people scratching out an existance in the steppes of Asia that are listening to the radio and discussing matters within their own as well as with the people they come in contact with as they follow their herds around. *we* are all part of the WE. As a collective, that's pretty stupid (it's the sum total of 6 billion humans on the planet--- see why at CollectiveIntelligence). But *we* here at WikiWorld understand that just a few individuals within such a large network can have a very large impact--- that *we* can help uplift our fellows to better living and secure an even better future for those yet to come. To me, this is the bright, burning heart of WikiWorld.
--StarPilot 12:31, 11 July 2006 (EDT)
Note the default
You know, I just noticed that when I use the MediaWiki featured tab "+" (Add comment), it automatically adds the comment to the bottom of the page. Following normal conversation. It also marks it up with a section header, meaning that after 4 such things are done, the page gets an automatic summary at the top of the page (well, at the first section markup). This reminds me that our collectively minded intelligence seekers at WikiPedia have already done this, and went with the standard oldest to newest, sig at bottom, format. Why? Easiest on the masses, IIRC.
We can of course decide on a different format to meet our needs, but the general format here has been the same... top to bottom, oldest to newest, with the occasional refactoring of pages when things became to confusing to the participants.
On trial today is Concensus by Default
Alle van Meeteren 10:14, 27 July 2006 (EDT) The following text I found on the page ConsensusByDefault on trial. For me as a newcomer the text is difficult to follow.
Concensus by Default is not real consensus
How can you have a consensus without the group knowing the bounds of the group? Since anyone can edit anything, how can you presume that by the nature of no protests on record, that you have a consensus? Someone may have removed any protests or dissenting opinions. All you have proof of is one (possibly more) ego(s) has bothered to input or edit what is currently present on Wiki... yes?
Alle van Meeteren 10:14, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
To gain real consensus is a painstaking proces. In the first place there has te be a clear issue. That is seldom the case. So it is a good starting point to presume consensus, till the contrary shows to be the case. Of course a bad willing person can hide signals of contra-voices, but we can better presume that everyone is of good willing.
Voices against a presumed consensus can not be suppressed
This Wiki PhpWiki has zero entropy, hit the history button below to see all version of anything. Do you mean something more by "knowing the bounds of the group"?
Removing any protests or dissenting opinions is bad Wiki Ediquite on any page.
There are still possibilities to fake a consensus
So I have since discovered. A version history does prevent total information loss/entropy in that there is a copy/version is preserved. However, older information isn't currently broadcast, so an individual can still bury details they do not like under a few hundred revisions that do not feature any information they dislike, do not agree with. Once again, we have arrived back at the problem of merely an ego is/was engaged, rather then a group working towards a consensus.
The bounds of the group? Exactly how many people are participating, by being a regular (whether merely in a passive or participating role). After all, I claim I'm StarPilot, but am I really? Maybe I'm JimScarver, or WhitneyHouston, or StevenHawkings, or SidMeier. ;-)
Can there be consensus if just one person is interested
Identity is so very fluid, in digital mediums. So, how do we know that we have truly reached a consensus, rather then just gotten so boring, all other participants have been bored away?
The decision of this court is that having been xxx visistors to this page, according to the info link at the bottom and no desenting opinion, you are guilty of nitpicking
Alle van Meeteren 10:35, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
The consensus is about things worded in an article, not about the behaviour of persons.
Oh, perhaps I should have accused you first....just kidding, lol.
- i dont care who you are but i'd sure rather you be one person than 10 different names.
- if a vote is called for we really need a beeter tool. for now we must sign our real name, address and email to vote so anyone can verify that the vote was not fixed.
- yes this takes some cooperation to work until we enhance our tool with authentication and permissions, a real transcript, and knowledge base of the facts as we can determin them.
Alle van Meeteren 10:35, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
I do not see the need for votes in ConsensusByDefault. ConsensusByDefault is part of a group-process. With voting this process comes to an end. After a voting the WE will split, that will be the end of ConsensusByDefault.
- No, it doesn't matter if there is really a concensus, in fact there hardly ever is a real concensus, concensus by defaul is the only way I have found to get a group to make any decision at all while the question is still relavant. The best we can do to try to insure that we have got all the issues in the open and someone can come up with something that answers the issues without being disputed. If the community is large enough you will have a least a few who care enough to not let a bad decision lay.
Alle van Meeteren 10:35, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
I agree
- All this court should care about, I think, is what facts can be established and what criteria should be used to base the decision on.
- We can try other mechanisms, did you have something specific in mind? WikiWorld is an experiment in concensus by default. It may not work, nothing I have tried yet is totally satisfactory. Attempt to get real consensus tend to compromise the quality of the solution and is nearly impossible in large groups.
- If required, I can set up a separte wiki for wiki courtrooms which only has members with verifies email addresses, or whatever criteria we wish. Wiki will require athentication if you wish.
As no alternatives have yet been identifies this court will continue to apply concensus by default.
A most important attibute any proposed solution must have is that it must facilitate, not inhibit the decision process to be useful. Consensus by default is unobtrusive allow free executive action and full veto power by any group member by any group member.
Alle van Meeteren 10:35, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
The instrument I propose is to edit texts in a cumulating way. A person starts a text as "we" if he is sure others share his saying. He starts as "I", if he is less sure. The first person who is backing this hesitating I, changes that I in we, reformulating the original wording as he thinks fits. If he has another opinion, he changes the first I, in "some of us have the conviction that" or the like, and he gives his own meaning in an I-sentence, or if he is sure about the fact that others of us share that meaning, he says that others of us think that.... In that way the article will continuelly express our collectiveintelligence, even if we are not of one opinion.
We will ignore
Humm... consensus by default. That sounds suspiciously more like 'You do what you want, and we will ignore it and do what we want which is completely different/counter to what you/the group wants.'. Maybe I've just been in too many 'policy setting' meetings lately. ;-)
You do what you want, and we will ignore it and do what we want is closer to the truth. WE are more powerfull than anybody. And WE will do what we want requardless of what anybody says. We will wage war dispite the fact that WarHasNeverAccomplisheddAnything but cycles of retaliation, and whatever the hell WE want to do, WE will do. Here EverybodyRules and it is wrong to overlook any viewpoint. Most of us are good people that want to do right. WE owe it to ourselves to set higher standards.
Concensus by default means there is a consensus as long as nobody objects. It is our duty to object if something is presented as consensus and WE do not agree. At the same time we grant 1st amendment rights of self expression to our fellow human beings.
End of text from this page
Splitting the group and KISS
Alle van Meeteren 13:56, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
On this talkpage StarPilot and I have a discussion about the KISS-principle. I introduce a new way of organizing our discussion. That new way does not follow the KISS-principle. This principle says that one has the keep the manner to discuss super simple. In his posting of 24 July StarPilot stated that the KISS-principle is necessary to keep the collective together.
I can agree with a principle like KISS if it means that the goal must be to keep the communication as simple as possible. But, something is simple in a relative way. What is simple for a grown-up, is often complicated for a child. A new way of doing things is never simple, compared with the way one was used to do things. Such a new way needs an investigation to become comprehended.
Someone in a group has to take the first step for an innovation. The group will split if the other members of the group do not follow him. But the reason is not that the innovation does not follow the KISS-principle. An innovation never does. The splitting is caused by the fact that the other members do not see the benefits of the innovation, or do like the old ways.
things get formalized
Alle van Meeteren 14:18, 27 July 2006 (EDT)
On this talkpage StarPilot and I have a discussion about the KISS-principle. I introduce a new way of organizing our discussion. That new way does not follow the KISS-principle. This principle says that one has the keep the manner to discuss super simple. In his posting of 24 July StarPilot contemplates about formalization. I do not understand why he contemplates about formalization. Is introducing a more sophisticated manner to discuss, by definition a formalization of the discussion? The system has two underlying principles. The last contribution to the discussion is the most important contribution, at least for the partakers. That contribution should have a prominent place. The counter principle is that the discussion has to follow the time-order. It is important that the reader should read (or sroll through) the history of the discussion, before he reaches the latest contribution. I do not see a difference from the formal point between these two principles. A second principle of this system is that it is a good thing for a discussion if one starts a reaction by summarizing the posting one is reacting on in its important points. In such a recapitulation the reacting person becomes conscious of the discussion in its main points. He shows his position in the discussion.The other party learns much form this recapitulation. And the summary makes it much easier for the reader to inform himself about the ongoing discussion. Perhaps you can call this principle a formalization, but I call it taking good care of the discussion. I do not see why it is bureaucracy, and why it is the anti-thesis of collectiveintelligence.